Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-04-06
SENATOR swITZER.
A Card From the Senator and Remarks by
the Putnam Democrat.

Will allow NE through your columns / VIII
briefly blaze out a short line of thought in
which would like to hear You discuss the
Senatorial question, if it is your pleasure.
| am not too old and / hope not too stupid
or stubborn to be taught. 1t will be a
shorter way aud attended with less trouble
and expense than mass meeting.
Every member of the Legislature as you
recolleet, before entering upon the duties
Of his Office takes an oath, among other
things that ''he will faithfully discharge
his duties rs Senator or Delegate according
10 the best Of his ability" can conceive
tha' oath to be for no other purpose than
TO bind him to act according to his own
convictions. Bor the scrupulous iuvio-
lateness Of that oath he is respon-
sible to his God. Is there any
way by which member can
relieved of that responsibility and vote not
his own conceptions of his duty but the
dictations of a caucus; Is there q way
provided in Christian morality by which
such caucus may assume the responsible
ity OF anOther's violated oath? would be
glad to hear you discuss the nature of a
political CaucnS, whether it be plan
where minOrities may be called upon by
the majority to surrender and sacrifice a
duty OF faith. Ii you say it be such a
place, then there is no place to hang an
argument. If however yOu admit that in
caucus no one is asked to surrender priu-
ciple. then We are ready to talk with you
and discuss, whether when asked to sup
port Mr.. Camden we are not asked to sac
riice principle It seems to me ,(if you
will pardon my suggestion that it would
be faireI way of treating tho question,
and the people you are supposed to cdu-
cate, to discuss this Senatorial question for
awhile in this line instead of keeping
behind the old Notifications OF time
hOnOred uSages,n under the cover of
which 80 many unsightiy things are
done unObserved by the body of the peO-
pie. Is not caucus rather place where
we only sacrifice our preferences, cur likes
and diSlikes, and not our convictions Of
principle? or has the parading of con
science" and convictions long ago, as
some of the editors say, disguised you? Ii
so would it not be more logical and fair TO
attack the sincerity of the twelve? But
better than all, instead OF abusing them,
would il not be more manly to discuss the
right and duty to "kick?" | would be
glad to hear such discussion believe in
the supreme sacrednesS OF the right to
kick" Yet think it should be reserved
and exercised only under extraordinary
circumstances and for the most unmiStak.
able reasons To my mind the right To
kick" is dependent upon the reasons for
Kicking" If the reasons exist, that mo
ment not only does the right exist, but
the duty is imposed. There should be
such q wholesome fear of the exercises Of
this right as to compsl maiOrities to allow
no reason to exist for Kicking. True the
reasons in this case appeared ample. /
deemed it my duty TO resist the election
Of Senator Camden. | would like to hear
these principles discussed honestly, re-
gardleSs Of the political hereSy they may
seem to contain, which is SO fJigGtiul in
appearance to these worshipers OF time
honOred usages." a discussion in this
line for awhile may do some goOd, will
at least be more pleasant than the funeral
requiem over the imminent dissolution OF
a party that is immortal. believe in the
Immortality OF the principles of the Demo
cratic party no less than | believe in the
immOr tally Of the soul.
RUFUS SwITZER.
The following is from an editorial in the
Putnam Democrat, in answer to the above:
Mr.. Switzer speaks of the oath taken,
and asks: rs there any way provided in
Christian morality by which caucus may
assume the responsibility of anOther's vio-
lated OATH" We answer, there is none,
nor does the writer see any necessity for
such a course rs that suggested by the
question. "MinOrities are not called upon
to sacrifice principles in caucus any more
than in case of popular election. The
great Democratic doctrine is to the effect
that the views of the minority, in caucus
or at the polls must yield to the majority,
without this revolution would follow after
every election. Minorities have submitted
and yielded in the past and must do so in
the future. The time honored usages'
to which the Senator seems to object, is
not only the bulwark of the Democratic
party, and all other parties; but the safety
of republican government itself
We think the Senator rather begs the
question and mistakes the very foundation
principles of a representative Government
like ours. Our Senators and Representa-
tives, As we have been led to believe, are
servants or the agents of the people, and
not their masters They are sent to these
places OF trust to represent the views and
wishes of their constituents not to mis-
represent them. 1.-THE course of Mr.. Swift
ger in the Senatorial question represents
the wishes of his Democratic constituents,
then he is all right, otherwise be is all
wrong We frankly say now to the Senator
rs we have said before, that in our humble
opinion his course as to the election of a
United States Senator does not reflect or
stituency. But on the other hand by his
course he has played square into the hands
of our political foes.
We do not intend to attack the sincerity
OF Mr.. Switzer, or any of the twelve on
the other hand we accord to them honesty
of purpose, and they should accord like
honesty of purpose to the rest of the
Democratic party. The oath the Senator
has taken and to which he refers, is no
more binding than the oath he has taken
as an attorney. Ii he should exercise the
same conscientious scruples" in eXpound
ing the law, as he does in the Senatorial
matter, it might sometimes be worse for
some of his clients. But we'can see moth
ing in his oath which would, or could in
any manner prevent him from supporting
any honorable Democrat for the L. S. Sen
ate We see nothing in his oath which
would prevent him from engaging in a
Democratic caucus fairly held, or from
supporting any honorable Democratic NOM
inee of such q caucus. Did not the
twelve" caucus more than once during
the session of the Legislature? Were not
their eaneuses DOR substantially the
same purpose as other scaueuses? Do
the TWELVE arrogate 20 themselves in
-their caneIisaa all 4 he nT1rikv of motives